June 30, 2008

This page has been moved to http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-nut

If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Gun Nut at its new location: www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-nut.

What's Wrong with this Picture?

One of the fringe benefits to last week's Supreme Court decision was Friday’s editorial in The New York Times, a newspaper that unfailingly hits new heights of hysteria at anything remotely favorable to gun owners. The Times’ view of America, at least as far as firearms are concerned, is apocalyptic. Heller will unleash armed mobs; the end is near.

It reminds me of Alexander Hamilton’s quote: “The people, sir, is a beast.”

From Friday’s Times editorial page we get:“This is a decision that will cost innocent lives, cause immeasurable pain and suffering and turn America into a more dangerous country. It will also diminish our standing in the world, sending yet another message that the United States values gun rights over human life.”

Not bad. On the Gun Nut Hysteriameter I give it an 8.5 out of a possible 10. Now we jump to page E1, the Weekend Arts section, where we come to the review of a new movie titled “Wanted,” and this amazing description:

“A man has soared onto the roof of a high rise where he has laid a handful of others to waste. Suddenly the camera cuts to his face as a bullet exits his head in slow motion, his skin stretching forward as the projectile tears through it going straight for the camera and our already numbed skulls. Well, that’s one way to get the attention of fickle movie goers…”

Is that what it is? I might have thought it was senseless glorification of violence to make a buck, glamorizing killing and inviting some of the halfwit jerks who watch this stuff to try it themselves. I might have thought it was the kind of thing that the Times Editorial page might condemn, except that on page 11 of the same section is a ¾-page, four-color ad for “Wanted,” for which said paper was paid a whole bunch of money. And as we are all aware, this is a very tough year for newspapers.

So I guess I will not hold my breath waiting for that particular editorial.

TrackBack

Comments

Judging from half the comments on your previous post, Mr. Hamilton was shooting pretty close to the mark.

I'm all for keeping my guns, and for keeping the government out of my business. But I'm also a big fan of human decency and honorable behavior. The way some of your readers let their inner beasts rave on your site does nothing but damage the reputation of gun owners overall.

There's a reason why the New York Times takes the positions it does, and that reason has nothing to do with logic or statistics. It has everything to do with the way a vocal minority of gun owners regularly pisses in the pot from which we all must drink.

I find it humorous (i must laugh or i shall go screaming insanely into the night) that these anti gun/freedom/ left wing zealots all becry "gun violence" (even if said violence is in defense of ones self) and then glorify these stupid cinamatic ventures that glorify gangsters, death and gun violence.(irresponsible gun handling that 99% of us that have and use firearms would NEVER think of doing or know damn well could NEVER happen the way depicted)

Am i the only one that gets that bit of insurmountable INSANITY?!?!

Hoagie: sometimes it is best to fight fire with fire...ever read the lies and untruths the anti crowd uses to descibe (and berate) myself and other freedom loving "gun nuts'!?!?

Good sir, i have been called everything under the sun... even had folk SCREAMING in my face because i calmly and succinctly destroyed the entire base (base built on half-truths and lies) of their lives. Using simple facts and common sense to take down every feeble arguement they can contrive to prove guns are evil.

I find it even more funny that i sit and be told i am evil, get threatened and have people screaming in my face...the ENTIRE time i have a fullyloaded fire-arm straped to my waiste band. If i REALLY wanted to piss in the pot we all drink from i would draw my gun and watch them piss THEMSELVES.

Dave I heard an interview with a NYT reporter on NPR concerning the Heller case. The point was that lax gun laws in the USA make it extremely easy for Mexican drug cartels to arm themselves with military style weapons easily obtained from Texan gun shows. After my head stopped buzzing from that spin, I developed an urge to attend a gun show in Texas.

'jack', takes a stab (or is it a shot) at editing Friday’s Times editorial page:

“This is a decision that will SAVE innocent lives, EASE immeasurable pain and suffering and turn America into a LESS dangerous country. It will also SOLIDY our standing in the world, sending yet another message that the United States values HUMAN LIFE.”

extremely easy for Mexican drug cartels to arm themselves with military style weapons?

I tell you, that is one of the most politically most stupid phrase out there!

Why you ask?
I tell you!

The following is a fact that I have learned being in the Military, associated with local, State and Federal (including FBI) Law enforcement.

Weapons of the Drug Cartels get there Military weapons not from the US, they get there weapons smuggled in from other countries and from South America. Original AK-47 Kalashnikovs are being smuggled into the US for years and at an alarming rate.

Then why does the Federal Government or anyone else bring this to our attention?

It does not fit the Democratic Agenda to disarm the American public and its taboo to even to discuss it!

One more fact to bring up and I’ll even bet anyone at Field and Stream to the NRA will not bring this matter up due to the ignorance of it all and the question is as follows? Spineless People!

What Government entity is responsible for your personal protection as a private citizen?

Answer: There is no Government Agency Local, State or Federal responsible for your personal protection! You’re on your own baby!

The fact is, when an intruder comes into your home and you dial 911, the dispatcher will prioritize your call on the information you give and the availability for dispatching a unit to your location. Remember, the available Officer responding may be 5 minutes away and it will be all over before you hang up providing if you’re lucky enough and there is a chance there is no officer available for dispatch!

Hoagie: Umm i DO NOT scream or yell when debating the 2nd....I dont NEED to...but have calmly put up with the raw stupidity that IS the anti-gun crowd. Its just ironic that the entire time i am being told how EVIL i am for owning guns...that I COULD be evil and they would NEVER know what happened...I guess i have strange sense of humor...or mayhaps my "humor" is a PFD to keep me from drowning in a sea of blatant stupidity.

Heller is a watershed event, and will go down in history as one of THE most well written, well researched, well thought out SC Opinion.

The din from the Left is expected since a flawed and immoral position was rammed down the throats of the People for so long, not to mention Gun Control was held for so long as a truism and main platform by the radical members Democratic Party.

This issue could sink Obama and the Democratic Party as could restoring taxation to pre-Bush standards, restoring the Alternative Minimum Tax to its original, and being
willing to appease tyrants.

" . . . to piss in the pot that we all drink from. . " Just casually walk by and put a .45cal hole in the bottom of it. We all need to be armed (pun intended) with succinct arguments which illuminate responsible firearms use.

Dave, are you sure that you want to accuse the NYT of hysteria after you wrote "If the Supremes had found against Mr. Heller and held that the Second Amendment refers only to militias, the future would be grim beyond imagining. . . . In the face of a defeat for our side, the new congress would draw up a really hellish anti-gun bill, and Obama would sign it immediately"? Isn't there enough hyperbolic predicting to go around?

The difference is that the NYTs editorial is based on ideology and hysteria despite the existence of vast amounts of data that contradict their assertions. In contrast, Dave's position is (probably) based on Obama's assertion for the need to ban the ownership, sale, or transfer, of all handguns and semiautomatic firearms. Obama only had to advocate that position once in his lifetime to guarantee that I will vote for his opponent.

"There's a reason why the New York Times takes the positions it does, and that reason has nothing to do with logic or statistics. It has everything to do with the way a vocal minority of gun owners regularly pisses in the pot from which we all must drink."

With all due respect, that is a steaming load of horse s***. At least 80% of firearms-related editorials (and 100% in the NYT) is not merely horribly biased but factually inaccurate, whether slightly or enormously. This is due to the fact that newspaper editorialists believe facts are meaningless things which they can spin, rewrite, or simply ignore as they see fit. If they cannot find a sutiable comment by a gun owner to beat out of context, they will be more than happy to make one up, i.e. "My name is Bubba and I'm so happy the Supreme Court ruled the way they did. Now I can go get my AK-47 and shoot a few innocent puppies and maybe a migrant worker, too!" So to use an appropriate pun, don't worry about giving the newspapers any ammunition. They are already well-stocked.

To RDJ: Me hyperbolize? The very idea. My assumption about what would happen was based on past performance and the fact that there are enough rabid anti-gunners in Congress to start their mischief on the slightest pretext. What we must remember is that the Clintons and Bradys and McCarthys and Schumers of this world are every bit as fanatical as the most rabid poster on this blog. They are, however, a hell of a lot more skillful at disguising the fact.

In the context of the Heller decision, The LA Whines, er, I mean Times,(my bad) the esteemed law professor Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine School of Law almost had a conniption because “The Supreme Court's invalidation of the District of Columbia's handgun ban powerfully shows that the conservative rhetoric about judicial restraint is a lie.”
He further states “If the terms "judicial activism" and "judicial restraint" have any meaning, it is that a court is activist when it is invalidating laws and overruling precedent, and restrained when deferring to popularly elected legislatures and following prior decisions.”
He also states that the court’s interpretation was problematic because everyone knows that the 2nd amendment was about those serving in the militia. Guess he didn’t read the Federalist papers or any of the writings of the Founding Fathers, because they didn’t think that, as Scalia pointed out very well.
The libs would very willingly take our guns and leave us completely dependent on them for even the air we breathe, so of course they will be upset when we find out we have this right under the Constitution. Not the libs’ constitution , but the real one, signed by the Founding Fathers. Course most of us can read and knew it wasn’t very vague as the esteemed dean says it is. In the dean's mind “the right of the people” is not well defined and only open to HIS interpretation
Let’s see, I’m thinking he wasn’t too upset when the Gitmo Habeas decision overturned laws written by a “popularly elected legislature” That was different because those people who have declared war on us, are not enemy combatants as no nation-state has declared war on the US. The evil administration has taken “innocent” people off the street and trumped up charges against them. Everyone knows Bush knew about the 9/11 attack and it was really blown up from the inside, ask the libs, they will tell you.
Several of the released prisoners from Gitmo were killed in later firefights with US troops. but they were innocent of the charges.
Now remember, in the libs’ minds it is patriotic to distrust everything about this war, and give “aid & comfort” to these poor misunderstood people trying ot destroy all of us because we are infidels. That’s why they don’t like our Constitution, where giving “aid and comfort” to the enemy is called treason.
But that because we are too stupid, to realize they are doing it for our own good, and don’t understand the complexities of the geo-political interactions taking place, we don’t they do.
Anytime someone tells you “it’s much more complex than that” and gives you that condescending “poor little simple child” explanation, it usually mean you’re fixing to have a shovelful of crap dumped on you. Put enough multi-syllable words in it and they try to make you feel inferior and succumb to their superior intellect “ Plees help us Jon Karey, weere stuk in Irack and kant get hoeme”
No, they want the 2nd amendment gone and the first, too if they can get away with it. Anyone heard of the "Fairness Doctrine?" Government Censorship, plain and simple, under the guise of being fair. Nothing fair about. If you can’t find someone to disagree with you on the radio, it’s not fair, you have to give equal time and pay for it, gimme a break.

William F. Buckley, Jr. once famously said that given the choice of being governed by the entire Harvard faculty or the first 100 names pulled at random from the phone book, he'd opt for the phone book every time. Same thing applies to the NYTs editorial board. If the Times were NOT reflexively and hysterically left wing you would be justified in wondering if the end was near. Unfortunately, its news coverage is indistinguishable from its editorial page, and often even less grounded in fact. If the Founders had been forced to read a week's worth of NYTs editorials (which would certainly qualify as cruel and unusual punishment) it is far more likely they would have rethought the first amendment than the second.

Do these fools think a total gun ban will stop crime? There would be more crime and just as many guns in the hands of criminals.I believe they do know and this is their ploy to disarm us to get a socialist,marxist government.True Americans love liberty,and are not giving up their guns.

Clay Cooper,
The area that I live in is rural. The closest State Police to me is 15 miles. Sheriff the same and local does not exist. When and IF I ever have to take matters into my own hands. I hope that I have the frame of mind and training to bring me through the crisis. There is nothing in my house that is worth the life of my Family but my Family. Of which I will fight to the death if necessary.

Clint Eastwood is a Nazi??? After hearing Spike Lee call out Eastwood, we here at Eyes on Hate did some research. And it seems the great Mr. Lee is not the only one who or the first one to think this.

Former co-star Eli Wallach, who played along side Eastwood in "The Good the Bad and the Ugly" said he knew Eastwood was racist for years. "I was born Jewish. And Eastwood hated me. Watch "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" and watch how Eastwood gets off when he kills non-white characters in the movie," stated Eli to Eyes on Hate. "Only racist whites would play cowboys. I mean, who gets killed mostly in these types of movies? Normally Native Americans and Mexicans. What do you expect from Eastwood? He is of Nordic DNA such as Scottish, Irish, English and Dutch," he added. (Eastwood's bio).

Eli was not the only former co-star of Eastwood's to speak out. Morgan Freeman, an African American who starred in Eastwood's "Million Dollar Baby" also spoke out. "Of course he is a bigot. In between cuts of Million Dollar Baby, Eastwood would get pissed when I messed up," stated Freeman today. "He made it seem like I kept messing up because I was black. I could sense his hatred toward blacks," he added.

Eastwood is one of many white Hollywood actors being exposed as bigots. Last year we exposed Tom Cruise and his ties to James Kelso and Stormfront. And just this week, Josh Hotz was attacked when trying to stop Jewish hater, Mel Gibson. And don't forget we even exposed both the Smurfs and Kermit the Frog with neo-nazi ties. Again, Eyes on Hate is on top of things!

Ok first of all, the quote from the editorial section is more like a 20 out of 10 on the hysteria meter. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. And every single lib and ant gunner’s needs to know this little phrase right here....Guns DON'T kill people, people kill people. If you say guns kill people then I should get 100's on everything in school because obviously I didn't make the mistakes on anything.....my pencil did. A pencil makes mistakes?? That sounds stupid doesn't it? Exactly. See my point the only thing that needs to be controlled in this great country is crime not guns. I personally think that everyone is entitled to their rights given by the constitution but the damn press needs to get it right, for God's sake they have no idea! And that idiotic person that wrote the editorial needs to be hit in the head in hopes of maybe gaining some common sense. The only thing that law would have done if passed, and thank God it didn't, would have given the criminals an easier job of killing people because the law abiding, great citizens would not be given a chance to defend themselves. The only thing you do by making guns illegal is help kill innocent people. By taking away gun rights you don't stop the amount of guns someone with a twisted mind gets you stop the people who want them for protection, recreation, or hunting in other words the innocent.